The Pique Technique: Overcoming Mindlessness or Shifting Heuristics? Jerry M. Burger,1 Joy Hornisher,Valerie E. Martin, Gary Newman, and Summer Pringle Santa Clara University An unusual request can increase compliance in situations in which the typical response to the request is refusal. This procedure, called the pique technique, is said to be effective because the unusual request causes people to give mindful consider- ation to it. We tested this explanation in 2 studies. Passersby were asked for either a common amount of change or 37 cents. Participants who inquired about the unusual amount were given either a specific or an uninformative reason. The pique technique increased compliance, but only when participants stopped to ask about the request. These participants gave more money, regardless of the reason provided. The findings failed to support the notion that an unusual request leads to a mindful consideration of it. A direct-mail fundraiser lists several suggested amounts for donations, including one for $22. A traffic sign directs drivers to slow their vehicles to 19 mph. And a stationery store distributes coupons that give customers 23% off the regular price of any item. Intended or not, each of these real-life examples appears to be taking advantage of a compliance procedure known as the pique technique (Santos, Leve, & Pratkanis, 1994). The technique is designed to increase compliance in situations in which people typically pay little attention to the request or routinely reject it. Practitioners of the tactic present individuals with an unexpected request, such as asking for an unusual amount of money. If successful, the procedure leads to higher rates of com- pliance than a condition in which the request is presented in a predictable and uninteresting manner. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the pique technique, Santos et al. (1994) had undergraduates act as panhandlers on the Santa Cruz, California, wharf. The location was selected because wharf visitors typically ignore the panhandlers who congregate there. The experimenters asked passersby for money, using either a traditional request (“a quarter” or “any change”) or an unusual request (“17 cents” or “37 cents”). A higher percentage of passersby gave money when presented with the unusual request than when hearing the 1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jerry M. Burger, Depart- ment of Psychology, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053. E-mail: [email protected] 2086 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2007, 37, 9, pp. 2086–2096. © 2007 Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing, Inc. PIQUE TECHNIQUE AND MINDLESSNESS 2087 traditional request. Santos et al. argued that the pique technique is effective because the unusual request disrupts the “refusal script” on which people typically rely in this situation. That is, most passersby have learned to not invest time and effort considering a panhandler’s request. Rather, they respond to the situation with a cognitively efficient refusal or diversion of attention. This heuristic processing is disrupted when the panhandler pre- sents an unusual request, which is said to “pique” the passerby’s attention. This description of the procedure is consistent with findings from other recent studies on compliance. That research suggests that people typically rely on cognitive shortcuts, or heuristics, when responding to simple requests (Burger, Messian, Patel, del Prado, & Anderson, 2004; Cialdini, 2001; Cial- dini, & Goldstein, 2004). Rather than thoughtfully considering the merits of the request, most people rely on simple rules or scripts to guide their behav- ior, such as “I say ‘No’ to panhandlers.” In a classic demonstration of this phenomenon, experimenters asked people who were preparing to use a photocopy machine if they could cut in line and use the machine first (Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978). When the request was relatively small (5 copies), whether the experimenter gave a good reason (“I’m in a rush”) or an uninformative reason (“I have to make copies”) made no difference. Participants allowed the experimenter to cut in front of them in both of these conditions significantly more often than when no reason was given. Presumably, the complying participants relied on a script that called for them to agree to simple requests whenever a reason is given. Had the participants considered the request in a mindful fashion, they most likely would not have allowed the experimenters to cut in line when presented with a poor reason. Returning to the pique technique, it seems reasonable that passersby who are confronted with an unusual request are taken out of their refusal script. However, it is not clear that this disruption alone leads to an increased likelihood of agreeing with the request. Santos et al. (1994) suggested that subsequent compliance is the result of “arousing the target’s curiosity and focusing attention onto the ‘strange and unique’ appeal” (p. 763). The new focus of attention is said to lead to a decision that compliance is appropriate. This could be the response of a driver who encounters the 19-mph traffic sign mentioned at the beginning of this article. The driver might ponder the reasons for the sign, decide that experts determined that any speed over 19 mph was unsafe, and slow down. In the panhandling study, participants may have considered the unusual amount and decided that the request was legitimate and, therefore, worthy of their agreement. Although intuitively appealing, evidence that individuals engage in a mindful consideration of an unusual request is limited. In a follow-up study, Santos et al. (1994) presented participants with written scenarios about being 2088 BURGER ET AL. approached on the wharf with an unusual (17 cents or 37 cents) or common (“any change”) request. After indicating their likely response, participants were asked to list the thoughts that went through their heads when they considered the request. The unusual amount did not generate more thoughts, nor more thoughts that were coded as “mindful” than did the common request. However, participants hearing about an unusual request were more likely to ask why the panhandler needed the money than were participants hearing about the common request. Although Santos et al.’s (1994) study found partial support for a mindful consideration following an unusual request, the nature of the investigation leaves some questions unanswered. Specifically, because participants knew that they were in a study and were asked to consider their reaction to a hypothetical encounter, it is not clear that unsuspecting individuals presented with unique requests in a real-world setting would generate the same kinds of thoughts. In fact, the wealth of research demonstrating that people typically respond to requests with heuristic processing argues that a thoughtful weigh- ing of the pros and cons, even for an unusual request, may require more cognitive effort than most passersby are willing to invest. We conducted two studies to explore this question. Study 1 We conducted a modified version of the panhandler study in which we varied the response requesters gave to participants who asked about the unusual request. Sometimes participants were given a reasonable answer, but other times they were given an uninformative answer similar to that used by Langer et al. (1978) in the photocopy machine study. If participants who ask about the unusual amount consider the request in a mindful fashion, we would expect an increase in compliance only when a reasonable answer is provided. Method Participants The participants were 321 adults (140 women, 181 men). Each participant was walking alone in one of five outdoor shopping areas in the San Francisco Bay Area and appeared to be over 18 years of age. Participants were not aware that they were involved in a study. PIQUE TECHNIQUE AND MINDLESSNESS 2089 Procedure One of four trained experimenters randomly approached the participant with a request. For safety reasons, experimenters worked in pairs, but the second experimenter remained at a distance far enough away to suggest that he or she was not acquainted with the requester. All experimenters were 21-year-old undergraduates who wore “normal school clothes” like the experimenters in Santos et al.’s (1994) investigation. All data were collected during daylight hours. Through a prearranged order, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the control condition, the experimenter approached the participant and said, “Excuse me, can you spare any change?” In the pique condition, the experimenter asked, “Excuse me, can you spare 37 cents?” If a participant in the pique condition asked what the money was for (29.9% of participants asked),2 he or she was given one of two responses, depending on a prearranged random order. Those in the specific-reason condition replied, “Because I need to buy a stamp.” Participants in the vague-reason condition replied, “Because I need to buy some things.” No one in the control condition asked why the requester wanted money. Experimenters kept at least a 3-ft. (1 m) distance between themselves and the participant at all times, except when reaching forward to receive money. They made no other verbal or nonverbal effort to secure the request. The only other words spoken by the experimenters were “Thank you” if the participant gave some money.3 Experimenters were careful not to block the participant’s path. Indeed, the typical participant did not break stride when walking by the experimenter, and many did not make eye contact. Results and Discussion We calculated the average amount of money given in each condition. We first compared the amount of money given in the three pique conditions combined with the amount given in the control condition. Participants in the pique conditions gave more money (M = $0.18) than did those in the control 2In Santos et al.’s (1994) study, 11% of the participants in the pique condition asked about the request.